Sir, – Brian Kennaway's views on church as club (October 1st) seem to leave God out of the equation – disciples are called by Christ to follow him, not to agree with out-of-date doctrine. Disciples may find their duty as following Christ within their church of origin and presenting his gracious call to those he came to save in the words and thoughts of the 21st century, not the 17th century.
Conservatives run the risk of making their view of a certain and unchanging doctrine into an idol which masks the living word of God and obstructs the Holy Spirit in working to keep his church as relevant and always reforming as God requires. Christ taught us that only trust in the power of God’s goodness, consciousness of our own faults, respect for those who differ from us, and a willingness to serve and forgive others can enable us to be reconciled with God.
As for the nature of marriage, we now understand that it is primarily a human and social institution which changes with our developing understanding of it and of ourselves. The Church of Ireland and the Methodist Church are undertaking processes to explore and reconcile different understandings within their denominations, but so far not the Presbyterians. We hope that all denominations will be attentive to the changing word of God and develop their theologies of marriage so that they are more appropriate to the modern understanding of that institution. – Yours, etc,
ROBIN SIMMONS,
Dublin 14.
Sir, – While I have no wish to prolong this discussion I must respond to Prof Paul Carmichel (October 3rd).
In 1988 the Presbyterian Church in Ireland revised its understanding of the confession by declaring, “the historical interpretation of the pope of Rome as the personal and literal fulfilment of the Biblical figure of ‘the antichrist’ and ‘the man of sin’ is not manifestly evident from scripture”.
Other churches have also clarified their understanding of the antichrist, in the confession.
The Orthodox Presbyterian Church in America and the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, are two such churches.
Prof Carmichel is correct to affirm that historically the statement on marriage was “clearly intended as an outright, unequivocal prohibition of polygamy, not a 17th-century censure of homosexuality”.
The Presbyterian Church in Ireland has, however, understood this as “exclusively between one man and one woman”, which is a censure of homosexuality. – Yours, etc,
Rev BRIAN KENNAWAY,
Retired Minister,
Presbyterian Church
in Ireland,
Belfast.
Sir, – It must be a long time since the Westminster Confession (1646) got an airing in the letters pages of The Irish Times! Most of us from day to day get through our lives as best we can without reference to it.
Our understanding of life has changed since the 17th century. It is our responsibility to make judgments in the light of our own experience and in our attempts to follow the teachings of Jesus with regard to our interaction with one another. It seems to me that this is precisely what the code refers to in “not refusing light from any quarter”.
The Rev Christina Bradley welcomed the Yes vote, and a commission was set up to examine her views. Not only that but apparently the findings (which obviously were negative) were then ceremoniously read out in her own church in her presence.
To me this is unacceptable. How can those of us in the church who value freedom of conscience respond? – Yours, etc,
MARGARET LEESON,
Dublin 16.